Unlocking the Mystery of Life

[OLRansom]

If motion requires a cause, it is certainly not another body in motion.

This is absolutely true, and that is why the Prime Mover is Himself not moved.  This is what Aristotle rightly reasoned.

Just as you cannot go backwards (for lack of a better term) in a chain of causes and effects - no matter how lengthy - without reaching, at some stage, the First Cause that is not Himself an effect of some other cause, so you cannot go backwards in a chain of moved objects - no matter how lengthy - without reaching the Prime Mover Who is Himself not moved.

[GrumpyTroll]

Scientific theories are referred to as such, because they make falsifiable and verifiable predictions about phenomena as yet unobserved, and they will therefore be so called however accurate they may be as models; the term theory in no way implies some great uncertainty about the predictions made by a model.

I agree, but the "as yet unobserved" portion is paramount, imo.  For all the merits of any theory, it is still just a theory.

It is a theory based on previous observations and empirically established.

Besides, why deny the theory of relativity or that of quantum mechanics?

You are again presuming, although unwittingly.  This time the presumption is that I actually deny said theory.  Nowhere in my post did I say such a thing.

Please do excuse me, as you certainly appeared to.

Do you only trust “science” that allows you to hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible or philosophical demonstrations as they were made several millennia ago?

Divine Catholic Faith makes it impossible to 'accept' so-called "scientific truths" that contradict the literal interpretation of Holy Writ - when the section under discussion is to be taken literally.  There are certain, objective principles involved when reading Holy Writ that render the oft-used "ultra-literalist" dig (which I imagine you do not mean to employ here) meaningless.

The Church does not ask that the first few chapters of Genesis be taken literally, and Pius XII promoted an allegorical interpretation of these chapters in the light of modern science (albeit with monogenism reaffirmed, as that is a dogma).

Modern physics in no way refutes the proof of the existence of God from causality entirely, but only out of motion, so why do you insist on it being true?

I believe this has a connection with your second post, so I will answer it in a moment.

Thank you.

[GrumpyTroll]

If motion requires a cause, it is certainly not another body in motion.

This is absolutely true, and that is why the Prime Mover is Himself not moved.  This is what Aristotle rightly reasoned.

Just as you cannot go backwards (for lack of a better term) in a chain of causes and effects - no matter how lengthy - without reaching, at some stage, the First Cause that is not Himself an effect of some other cause, so you cannot go backwards in a chain of moved objects - no matter how lengthy - without reaching the Prime Mover Who is Himself not moved.

Aristotle said (Physics, VII): “Since everything that is in motion must be moved by something, let us take the case in which a thing is in locomotion and is moved by something that is itself in motion, and that again is moved by something else that is in motion, and that by something else, and so on continually: then the series cannot go on to infinity, but there must be some first movent. … Therefore the series must come to an end, and there must be a first movent and a first moved: for the fact that this impossibility results only from the assumption of a particular case is immaterial, since the case assumed is theoretically possible, and the assumption of a theoretically possible case ought not to give rise to any impossible result.” Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote (Summa, I, q. 2, a. 3): “The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.”

The whole argument is based on the idea that whatever is in motion is put in motion by another thing in motion (except for that moved by the Unmoved Mover), and that idea is refuted by modern physics.

[Paul]

The whole argument is based on the idea that whatever is in motion is put in motion by another thing in motion (except for that moved by the Unmoved Mover), and that idea is refuted by modern physics.

Could you post something about how modern physics refutes this? I'm guessing the Heisenberg principle has something to do with it, but after running through my little bit of physics knowledge, I'm not quite seeing what you're referring to.

[GrumpyTroll]

Indeed, as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states, the position and momentum of an object cannot be accurately known at any given time, and its behaviour cannot be accurately predicted; there is no causal relation between the position and momentum of an object in two different positions, and only a probability of these can be given.